Aiya Conference

8/4/2019 Aiya Conference

1/15

Title

Movements in prehistory through the landscape around Neiphin Mountain, Co Mayo.

Patrick Walsh

This paper discusses how monuments such as cairns, megalithic tombs, standing stones

and barrows fulfilled different roles within the prehistoric landscape around Neiphin Mountain, Co. Mayo. The topography of this landscape consists of mountain peaks,

ranges lakes and marginal land. The restrictive nature of this landscape due to its

geography lead the movement of people along defined natural boundariesaided/reinforced/marked by the built monuments. It is suggested that these monuments

indicated routeways, of not only domestic character between farmsteads and various

resources, but also fulfilled a role in maintaining social and economic contacts over long

distances within the north part of Mayo

Introduction

It is the purpose of this paper to present an interpretation of the role the archaeological

monuments specific to this landscape played in prehistory. The paper will be aided byGIS applications and photography which will bring more clarity to the discussions thatwill arise. Extensive field walking was undertaken as part of the research, and this

technique was most useful in interpreting the monuments within their landscape. By fieldwalking some possible new archeological sites were identified which went previously

unrecorded. There is also a review of the literary and cartographic sources related to thestudy topic throughout the paper. The use of local knowledge was helpful too in locatingthe sites that will be discussed later.

Cairns, megalithic structures, barrows and the standing stones are some of themonuments that form part of the Neiphin archaeological landscape. Bradley would view

these monuments as fashioning an order or system on the landscape (Bradley 1993, 47-48). There are a number of cairns and megalithic structures in the study area, and by thesemonuments we can recognize for the first time the concept of deliberately creating a

ritual or ceremonial landscape. The focus of the tombs is not on the everyday act ofdomestic life, but more on the special and sacred taking place at particular times of the

year. It is this seemingly organized repetitive nature of human activity in these specialplaces that we can see as a link between the use of megalithic tombs and other kinds ofarchaeological sites that developed later in prehistory (Cooney & Grogan 1994, 209

210). This theory of a repetitive nature was tested in the field within the study area tosee if the monuments in the landscape around Neiphin, showed evidence of earlier

archaeological sites that would become the focus for the later archaeological monuments.The barrow at Castlehill in the study area for instance, has evidence of large stones usedin the construction of the burial mound. These large slabs may have been once the

ortostats of an earlier megalithic tomb that were incorporated into the later barrow. If sothis could illustrate the continuity and importance between the different sites through the

periods in history.


2/15

Figure 1- A barrow at Castlehill. Note the larger stones that are in the outer ditch enclosure. These stones

may have once being part of an earlier megalithic structure. This illustrates the reuse of the tombs.

(PWalsh).The approach taken to this narrative about the landscape will be to move away

from looking at the monuments in detail and take a more landscape based approach.Bradleys view is that not only were the tombs used as burial chambers and for votive

offerings, they also lend themselves to a concept of people moving through a ancientlandscape. The reason for emphasizing the importance of avenues and alignments, bythe use of tombs over distances coerces the movement of the people to pass only along

certain routes (Bradley 1993, 49). This is the central theme within this paper.

Location

Neiphin Mountain itself is the second highest Mountain in Connaught, rising on the West

side of Lough Conn. The Neiphin Mountain range extends from Lough Conn to the eastof the study area to Achill Island in the west where Croaghaun Mountain ends in a sheer

vertical drop out into the Atlantic Ocean. The mountain range acts as a natural boundarydividing South and North Mayo. The mountain range is located along the westerly pointof the line of court tombs that extend from east of the country to the west. The Neiphin

landscape is well known for its lake setting, with the larger lakes Lough Conn and LoughCullin to the West, and the smaller lakes of Lough Levally and Bofeenaun to the South.

The landscape if defined by its mountain peaks and lake lands.

Figure 1 is the study area

marked in red. Neiphin issituated to the West of the

line of court that extend

form the east of the country

(Map Waddell 98, 79).


3/15

Prehistoric Archaeology of the area

Passing through Neiphin mountain range the trave ller is moving into North Mayo. NorthMayo is well known in archaeological terms for the discovery of the Cide field. The

field systems are evidence for extensive settlement are supported by the presence ofextensive settlement enclosures and megalithic tombs. These tombs can be divided intofour classes: court tombs, portal tombs, passage tombs and wedge tombs. All four main

types of megalithic tombs are present in Mayo, but with a strong dominance of the courttomb class.

Barrows are also a feature within the Neiphin landscape. A cemetery mound orbarrow at Corrower, southeast of Ballina, consisted of a low circular mound some 13m indiameter and was found to contain nine graves (Waddell 1998, 143). Standing stones are

the simplest kind of stone monument in Ireland and comprise a single stone set upright

Figure 3 is a GIS map of the archaeological monuments that are found in the Neiphin landscape.

(PWalsh).


4/15

into the ground and can vary in height from one to six meters. Set within the Neiphinlandscape there are up to ten standing stones within the area taken for the study.

There are many examples of crannogs or lake dwellings, which can sometimes belocated on natural islands but are often entirely constructed on artificial islands. We can

assume that the crannogs were defended homesteads occupied by the wealthy and

prestigious in early medieval Irish society, thereby illustrating the importance of thislandscape as a place to settle and prosper. The crannog construction would have called

for the organisation of a considerable labour force (Edwards 1990, 41). One crannog sitein Bofeenaun to the south of Neiphin uncovered several finds during excavation,

including a hammer stone, two metal gouges and two furnace bases (Maloney and Keane1992). In the following four sections the main types of monuments that have beenselected for this study will be discussed. This will include a critique of the cairns, the

megalithic monuments, the barrows and standing stones. The final section will thenpresent a discussion on the roles these monuments played within the Neiphin landscape.

Cairns

Circular mounds (or cairns) vary greatly in size and are known in most parts of Co Mayo.

The cairns are essentially a mound of stones usually covering one or more burials. Sealedwithin the mounds, there can be chambers or tombs whereby human remains and

offerings can be deposited. Sometimes there are cist burials which are box- like structuresmade of stone slabs. These are of a general Neolithic early Bronze Age date. The burialscan be either cremated or unburnt accompanied by decorated pottery, of either food

vessels or urns. During field walking no remains of the cairns were located that wereidentified on the RMP survey. The survey, illustrates evidence of two cairns which once

sat on the summit of Neiphin with one more, located lower down slope in Doonbreedia.In addition to the two cairns on the mountain top, there are a further ten satellite cairnsrecorded along the lower reaches of the mountain. The cairns all seemed to have favoured

the elevated ground that Neiphin would have provided. The cairns were dispersed evenlyamong the townlands which run up to the peak of Neiphin.

Figure 3 The RMP map

indicates two cairns

resting on the mountain top

on Neiphin. It also

identified cairns in the

townlands as indicated

above


5/15

The distribution of the cairns located in all of the townlands around Neiphin isinteresting. From the RMP map above they seem to be enclosing the mountain. We can

assume that the cairns were more than just mounds of stone covering burial chambers.The cairns were constructed they here on this mountain location to take advantage of the

aspect that this dominant natural feature provided for them. Neiphin therefore was always

seen as a special location. Mountain top locations are the greatest indicator that the cairnshere would have formed some sort of a ritual function. The isolated location would have

aided any ritual performance. Similarly to other mountain top locations the visibility fromthe site and contact with other sites would have been a prerequisite (Bergh 1995, 143).

From the photograph here we can see that there is a clear view to other mountain peaks.

In many cultures mountain tops are the homes of gods with evidence of peak sanctuariesfrom the Minoan culture. (Bradley 2000, 100 103). The presence of the cairns on thismountain top location could also have been a link with the gods for the cairn builders atNeiphin. The presence of the cairns would have stimulated the creation of myth and

legend about a place, and elevates the status of the mountain locally. Places such asmountain peaks, springs rivers and caves suggest a link with the spirit world. All of the

landscape features have been recorded in the oral and historic tradition as having aparticular significance. (Cooney 2000, 129)

There has been a tendency to relate cairns and passage tombs with agriculture,

because the monuments are of a general Neolithic date, and the Neolithic signifies thestart of agriculture in Ireland. It is true that the people were settled, better organised and

would have had more time for building megalithic tombs. It is over simplistic to say thatthe cairns are a side effect of farming, in many instances we see that the megaliths andcairns can appear where pastoral farming was not a concern. The mountain peak of

Neiphin is a good example of this, where non existent soil and steep slopes are notsuitable for any type of farming. It would seem that both the farming and the building of

the cairn monuments on and around Neiphin are not related in any practical way. If thecairns are not linked to farming, they may have been a fixed foci on the landscape for anotherwise moving group of people (Cooney 2000, 127).

Figure 4 The mountain top at Neiphin with other mountain peaks in view


6/15

The Megalithic Monuments

Along the fertile lowlands to the north of Neiphin there are some good examples of

megalithic monuments. At Carrowkilleen for example, there is a well-preserved and

impressive tomb the largest court tomb monument type of its class in Mayo. The mostcharacteristic feature of the court tombs like this is the open court often U-shaped and

lined by slabs or dry stone walling, located at the wider end. This tomb seems to havemore than one phase of use and demonstrates its importance within the landscape (Keane

1990, 96). To the north of Neiphin in Eskeragh there are three cour t tombs while inBallyduffy there are two court tombs which are in a ruined condition. In Enagh Beg alsonorth of Neiphin there is a portal tomb orientated northeast to southwest. Wedge tombs

also appear within this landscape and are considered of having a later Bronze Age date.There are wedge tombs in Carrowgrave south, and Srahyconigaun north of the Deel River

as indicated in figure 3. The remains of some megalithic tombs are so badly damaged thatthey cannot be accurately identified and are recorded as unclassified megalithic tombs.

Megalithic tombs such as the ones mentioned above, could have played a role inthe movement of people as Jones suggests that the mechanism off movement is linkedwith the mechanism of ritual (Jones 1998, 14). This demonstrates how the ritual can

focus on a certain points or features within the landscape and those landscapes withoutany prominent feature may use the megalithic tombs as points in the locality to movetowards, whether they are man made like the megaliths or whether they are natural

features (Jones 1998, 14). On the lowlands to the north of Neiphin the flat topographymeans that there are very few natural landscape features to aid in the movement through

the landscape, therefore it was logical for the prehistoric societies to erect monumentsalong routeways and avenues.

OBrien argues a strong case for the link between megalithic tombs and trade

moved along route ways and contacts established for the exchange of metals and othercommodities (OBrien 2000, 161-174). The search for wealth and resources therefore

may have been a factor in the distribution of the megalithic tombs and it seems to providethe motive for the widespread traveling of these peoples. There is an economic incentivefor the promise of new agricultural land, metal or other commodities, and we know from

recent excavations within the study area, that the production of metal was a concern forthe people (Murphy 2006). The over riding evidence however in the sitting and

construction of the megalithic monuments within the Neiphin landscape would have beenin relation to the fertile soils, and the fishing grounds that Lough Conn and the DeelRiver would have provided. There was a need to be close to these natural resources for

the subsistence concerns of these Neolithic communities.


7/15

Barrows

Barrows

There are different types of barrows; round or ring barrows are the most commontype of barrow, which are sub divided up into five classes, bowl, bell, disc, saucer andpond barrows. It is difficult to put an exact date on the barrows, as Doody explains how

some barrow complexes may date from as early as the Neolithic through to the Iron Age(Doody 1992, 22). The barrows in this study for the most part seem to be ring barrows,

though the typology of the barrows is not a concern in this paper, what is of interest istheir spatial distribution. There are nine barrows, from Knockfarnaght in the southrunning through to Castlehill, Kilmurray Beg and on to Carrowcloghagh where there is a

cluster of four barrows just short of the Deel River. On the other side of the river there isanother barrow at Lecarrow. These barrows clearly show a linear trend, and cover a

distance of approximately five kilometres. This concept of intervisibilty would seem tohave also been a concern for the barrow builders in this part of Mayo. Interestingly thereis a lack of barrows outside this linear stretch of monuments, there are only two located at

Errew along the banks of Lough Conn. Therefore there is an obvious desire for thebarrow builders to be located along this linear route. The line of barrows is also aligned

along a narrow dry ridge. The people obviously favoured the dry ground, away fromareas that are liable to flooding, presumably for easy movement along a naturally definedpassageway. This ridge is particularly noticeable from Kilmurry beg to the north of

Neiphin to Carrowcloghagh south of the Deel river.

Figure 5 Megalithic Structure at Cartron viewing

south towards Neiphin. (PWalsh).

Figure 6 Evidence of bowl furnace pits, for smelting ores in

Doonbredia townland, which is in the study area. This shows

the significance ores had within the community whereby

people would have travelled long distances to extract and

work with metals( ACS Ltd).


8/15

The barrows which are the cemeteries to the dead can be described as a pushing

away of the deceased from the main settlements within the community. The barrowstherefore tend to be located away from the main areas where the habitation sites might

have been and favored the positioning closer to the lake or water course areas (Cooneyand Crogan, 1994129 - 132). Tilly would argue the highly visible barrows attracted otherbarrows through time, providing the traveller with visual pathways and nodal points

(Tilly, 1994 30 & 159). Tilly has used this approach of intervisibility between the longbarrows in Cranborne Chase near the causewayed enclosure in Hambledon Hill. The

barrows taken for this paper are simpler ring barrows than those barrows at Cranbrone,

there are comparisons to be made however. Like the barrows in the study area, Tillysexamples are spread out over a long distance. The barrows at Cranbrone Chase can be

seen from eight to nine kilometres away. They are related to the topographical features inthe landscape, rather than to other monuments. Being able to see other barrows from each

other was clearly important to them (Tilly 94, 156 - 158).There have been excavations at Carrowjames in Co Mayo of a cluster of ring

barrows by Raftery in the 1940s. Carrowjames is situated within the wider scope of the

specific study area. The ring barrows excavated were mostly low of about 50cm in heightwith some ditches surrounding them. They were clustered more tightly together, so they

seem to only function as burial mounds rather than markers of any passage through alandscape (Raftery 1940). The survey of the Ballyhoura hills project undertaken by

Martin Doody includes a survey with a range of site types which include barrows andassociated earthworks. As mentioned the barrow complexes can date from as early as theNeolithic to the Iron Age (Doody 1992, 22). It is possible that the burial mounds may

have once showed a linear pattern, but over such a long time frame and due to continualuse there was an addition of more mounds. Therefore, if there was any linear trend theywould have become more nucleated with time. There were further excavations carried out

by Daly and Grogan of four barrows in Mitchelstowndown West in County Limerick.These examples have a linear pattern but are almost touching each other over a very short

Figure 7 - Opposite

is a terrain model of

the barrows within

the Neiphin

landscape. Notice

the linear pattern of

the barrows until

they reach the

fording point across

the Deel River.

Alternatively, the

ring barrows may

enclose the lake

area to the east of

the barrows. ( P

Walsh).

Deel River

Carrowcloghagh

Linear barrow pattern

Neiphin Mountain

Lough Conn


9/15

distance, so it is also unlikely that these barrows create any avenue for travelling throughthe landscape (Daly and Grogan 1992, 44). At Tara there is a sequence or plan in the

placing of the barrows. Newman would argue that there was a hierarchical systeminvolved in the placement of the monuments. The more important burial mounds were

placed close to the centre of the hill while the lower status sites were pushed away and

became satellites sites to the sanctified centre of Tara (Newman 1992, 86). These outliersites may have been used to delimit the periphery of the sacred ground. This trend can

also be observed from the Salisbury Plains landscape which contains the densest andlargest groups of round barrows in Britain. They all seem to be in the limits of visibility

from Stonehenge as to create an envelope of visibility. There seems to be no BronzeAge remains only those lining the limits of the further reaches of the Stonehengecomplex. This could be interpreted as liminal zones between the landscape of the living

and the dead. (Parker Pearson & Ramilisonina 1998, 154). The barrows within the studyarea could be acting as a liminal line also, enclosing Lough Conn to the east. It is

difficult to say whether the barrows create the limits of a settlement or sacred site whenthere is no evidence for such a place.

One explanation as shown on the RMP map is that the barrows lead to a fordingpoint at the Deel River. In between the cluster of barrows in Carrowcloghagh to the southof the Deel River and the barrow to the North at lecarrow, there is a fording point

indicated. The barrows therefore may have acted as signposts along the route around thebase of Neiphin and on up through the fording point in the Deel river. By passing throughthis fording point there is a symbolic movement across the river and on into North Mayo.

North Mayo would have been a well known area in prehistory. We can make thisassumption from rich archaeological landscape around Ceide.

Figure 8 - Above is an RMP map indicating the river crossing or

fording point found along the route as outlined by the line of barrows.(RMP Sheet #38).


10/15

Standing Stones

Standing stones are the simplest kind of stone monument in Ireland and comprise a single

stone set upright into the ground and can vary in height from one to seven meters. Theycan be found all over the country but are especially common in the southwest where

around 600 examples are known. The function of standing stones is a mystery though

several theories have been put forward including territorial boundary markers andlandmarks to assist travelers. In some cases, excavation has revealed cist burials in

association with these monuments, adding weight to the theory that standing stones aregrave markers (OKelly 1989, 228). Standing stones usually occur in isolation. However,

some may form part of alignments, which are generally defined as three or more standingstones forming a linear pattern. The dating of standing stones appears problematic. Theyare associated with the Bronze Age but their construction and uses may indeed range

from the Late Neolithic into the Early and Late Bronze Age. It is very difficult to fullyestablish the stones significance, because individual standing stones today may once have

been part of a more complex group of standing stones. One of the most interestingaspects is their association with Bronze Age burials, which appears to support the theory

of them being of ceremonial and ritual use (Corlett 2001, 27). Today we may viewstanding stones in isolation, but they would once have formed part of the overall structureof the Bronze Age landscape, forming part of a largely man made landscape, and possibly

being associated with settlement sites throughout the Bronze Age countryside .Bradley discusses how standing stones are positioned in relation to the

topographical features, and are also erected in relation to one another, so they can form

short alignments across the landscape. Bradley emphasizes the importance of avenuesand alignments by the use of tombs over distances which coerce the movement of the

people to pass only along a certain route (Bradley 1993, 45 - 49). While Muir suggeststhat the standing stones are located on high points which mean that there was a desire tobe seen from long distances (Muir 1999, 80). Corlett also discusses the possibilities that

the standing stones within the West Mayo landscape could have marked routeways alongTchar Phdraig which still is today a pilgrim route to Croagh Patrick. The standing

stones could have marked the route for an earlier pagan pilgrim road (Corlett 2001, 28).Within a wider context standing stones in the Betsileo the highland region in Madagascarare primarily the markers for the dead, and traditionally commemorate a man whose body

has not returned to his ancestral tomb. They can also be used to mark the boundaries ofdifferent groups or territories. Another interesting role of the standing stones in this

region was that they may have been erected to mark important events like winning orloosing a battle. (Parker Pearson & Ramilisonina 1998 147 -149). Due to the location ofthe standing stones in this study area across territorial lands it is not unreasonable to

suggest that battles may have been fought here.

The evidence from this landscape suggests that the standing stones seem to bealigned along a possible prehistoric route. Similar to the barrows, the standing stonesnorth of Neiphin appear to run in a line. During fieldwork a possible a standing stone wasdiscovered at Massbrook. It is situated along a well known walking route The Foxford

way. The stone indicates the entrance into a mountain pass and forms part of thealignment with the other known standing stones around Neiphin (Walsh 2006). As you

move north and follow the line of barrows and standing stones they seem to mirror eachother until they reach a crossroads at Sranalaghta North and Sranalaghta South. Here


11/15

there is a cluster of sites, including one of the barrows in the neighbouring townland atKilmurray Beg. It would seem that once the traveller passes through Sranalaghta they can

follow the line of barrows which will lead them to the fording point along the River Deel,or follow the course of the standing stones which aligns a possible route to Carrowkillen,

the location of the largest court tomb monument of its class in Mayo. Carrowkillen must

have been a desired location to visit in prehistory. The tomb here has had later chambersadded to its structure which indicates the continued evolving of the site through the

periods in prehistory (Keane 1990, 96). The evidence from this area however, wouldsuggest that rather than the megalithic tombs being markers along a certain route, that

this megalithic tomb at Carrowkillen for instance was an actual gathering point fortraveling Neolithic people.

Carrowkillen site of the

court tomb

Deel River

Sranalaghta

Neiphin Mountain

Standing stone at Massbrook

Figure 9 Recently

discovered possible standing

found is indicated with the

larger red symbol. It marks a

passage route through

Massbrook Mountain whichis to the south of Neiphin. The

other known standing stones

seem to mark a passage

around Neiphin and end with

a cluster at Carrowkillen.

(PWalsh).

Figure 10 - Possible standing

stone which marks the

entrance between two valleys

and leads on up to North

Mayo at Massbrook. ( P

Walsh).


12/15

Movement through the landscape

The visible nature of the archaeological features upon the landscape means they musthave had significance in prehistory, in both a symbolic and practical manner. Grogans

studies of upland passes led him to believe that many of the route ways were not through

inhospitable terrain but along ribbons of domestic space that would themselves be usedon a regular basis by the local communities (Grogan 2006,74). The pathways facilitated

the movement and social contact between the separate communities represented byclusters of sites. This gave economic opportunity for the long distance traveller (Grogan

2006, 75). Long distance travelling may have been a concern of the people from this area,as was the everyday access to neighbouring farmlands, to avail of other resources likeaccess to river courses. The passage ways were there also to maintain social contacts or

long distance travel for trade and attendance at seasonal or annual gatherings to theknown places in the North Mayo.

In keeping with the mountain landscape theme, Bergh for example has undertakenextensive work in Sligo specifically with the mountainscape of Knocknarea. He suggests

that the cairns and megalithic structures are there to commemorate, to create a sense ofplace (Bergh 1995, 141). From the archaeological sites that we have looked at in thisarticle we can make an interpretation of their role within this specific landscape, on and

around Neiphin Mountain. From the archaeological evidence around the Neiphinlandscape, there appears to be different motivations behind the building of thesemonuments. The cairns were monuments that are extravagant for just burial sites. Their

positioning on the mountain top would have meant that the dead from the communitywere closer to the gods and cairns were positioned on the height to watch over the fertile

farming and grounds around Neiphin. The monuments change the relationship betweenthe people and the land. They create an identity for the local people and create an order orsystem on the landscape (Bradley 1993; 47- 48). Conspicuous land marks such as

knocknarae, Ben Bulben and Croagh Patrick must have had powerful impact on thepeople, and influenced the construction of the monuments. The same can be said for

Neiphin Mountain. The monuments create a place; an eternal sign of the fact that theirancestors are on the land, in an effective and permanent way. Although Tarlow wasspeaking more of nineteenth century ceremonial monuments, she defines it well by

explaining The tombs offered an opportunity in mediating and representing therelationship between the living and the dead (Tarlow 2000, 218). The presence of the

cairns on this mountain top location would have stimulated the creation of myth andlegend about a place, and elevates the status of the mountain locally.

The barrows would also seem to have a higher function than merely being earthen

mounds covering the dead. They may symbolise a sacred route leading to a water supplythat was a crucial resource for the existence of the prehistoric people. At Carrowcloghagh

the cluster of the monuments could represent the fording point along the river. Thisfording point over the Deel River was more than just a bridging point; it marked asymbolic causeway where the traveller crossed from one territory into another.

The megalithic structures in the area seem to be more concerned with locatingthemselves along the fertile plains rather than being attracted to any linear route. The

complex at Carrowkillen could have been a desired location to visit in prehistory, andfrom this study it seem possible that the standing stones line a route way around the base


13/15

of Neiphin leading up to this tomb at Carrowkillen. The location of a possible standingstone at the entrance of the mountain pass in Massbrook could have indicated the

routeway for the prehistoric traveller to take when moving through the mountainousterrain of Neiphin. The standing stones and the barrows seem to mirror each other for a

certain length of time around the base of the mountain and then meet at Sranalachta Beg.

This location could have been once a type of cross roads, where there is a cluster of sites.Once the traveller passes through Sranalachta Beg, they can follow the line of barrows

and pass through the fording point at the River Deel, or follow the course of the standingstones to Carrowkillen. These passage ways would have been there to maintain social

contact or long distance travel for trade and attendance at seasonal or annual gatherings tothe known places in the North Mayo and Sligo region. Therefore the route itself was anessential component upon the prehistoric landscape, and would have been justified by

being set out with the ritual burial sites as mentioned.The Neiphin mountain range itself has been used as a natural boundary to divide

territory. These boundaries would have had their origins in the 5th and 6th Century. Theecclesiastical parishes were formally constituted during the twelfth century, after the

Synod of Rath Breasail in 1111 and the Synod of Kells in 1152 (OHara 1982, 3). This isimportant because it highlights the study area as being pivotal in territorial division. Thenatural features within the landscape were seen as important boundary markers, to

distinguish between areas. In prehistory too the Neiphin landscape would have beenviewed as an area where you were moving from one territory into another. This physicaland symbolic movement would have influenced the characteristics of the monuments.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed how the archaeological remains namely the cairns and othermegalithic structures, barrows and standing stones perform different roles upon this

particular landscape. The paper has considered the possible passage ways that wereused in prehistory, for everyday access to neighbouring farmlands, to avail of otherresources, access to river courses and ceremonial sites. By taking a phenomenological

approach and experiencing the landscape the archaeological sites are no longerisolated monuments but collectively are very active mechanisms within the

landscape.

AcknowledgementsSpecial thanks to Dr Stefan Bergh and Dr Carleton Jones for all their helpful advice.

Thanks to the AIYA committee for their invitation to speak and bring this paper together.


14/15

Bibliography

Bergh, S. 1995Landscape of the monuments. A study of the passage tombs in the Cil

Irra region, Co. Sligo, Ireland. Stockholm: Riksantikvariembetet Arkeologiska

Underskningar

Bradley, R.J. 1993. Altering the Earth. The Origins of monuments in Britain andcontinental Europe. The Rhine Lectures 19911992 Society of Antiquaries ScotlandMonograph Series number 8. Edinburgh.

Corlett, C. 2001. The Antiquities of West Mayo,Bray Co Wicklow.

Connolly, M. 1996. The Earthen Barrows of lee Valley, Journal of the Kerry

Archaeological and Historical Society 29, 40 -54 Kerry.

Cooney G and Grogan E. 1994.Irish prehistory a social perceptive. Bray Wordwell.

Grogan in Coyne, F. 2006. Islands in the Clouds. An upland archaeological study on

Mount Brandon and the Paps in County Kerry, Kerry County Council.

Daly and Grogan. 1992. Discovery programme reports 1. Dublin Royal Irish Academy

Discovery programme.

Doody, M. 1992. Discovery programme reports 1. Dublin Royal Irish AcademyDiscovery programme.

Donohue, T. 2003. History of Crosmolina. De Burca Dublin Ireland.

Grogan, E. 1999 The Late Bronze age hillfort at Mooghaun South. DiscoveryProgramme.

Jones, C. 1998 Interpreting the Perceptions of Past People. In Jones, C. and Hayden, C.

(eds.) 'The Archaeology of Perception and the Senses' Archaeological Review fromCambridge15( 1).

Jones, C. in press, Coasts, mountains, rivers and bogs. Using the landscape to exploreregionality in Ireland. In Barclay, G. and K. Brophy (eds.) Regional Diversity in the

Neolithic of Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow.

Keane, M. 1990. Survey of the Deel Basin. Crossmolina historical and archaeological

society. Western People Ballina.

Maloney and Keane. (1992) Mayo in www.excavations.ie

Muir, R,1999.Approaches to landscape. Landon Mac million Press

Murphy, D, 2006. Crosmolina final report Bord Gas Pipeline to the West.

Newman, C, Tara: 1997. An Archaeological survey discovery programme monographs 2Dublin Royal Irish academy.

O Brien, W,2000. Megalithic tombs, metal resources and territory in prehistoric

South West Ireland. New Agendas in Prehistory. Papers in commemoration of Liz

Anderson Wordwell Wicklow.


15/15

OHara, B. 1982 (ed) The archaeological, historical and folklore society. RegionalTechnical Collage Galway Ireland.

O Kelly 1989 Early Ireland An introduction to Irish Prehistory Cambridge UniversityPress

Parker Pearson and Ramilisonina (ed) by Timothy Darvill and Caroline Malone

Stonehenge for the ancestors the stones pass on the message Megaliths from Antiquitypaper 3.2003

Raftery, J. 1940. GalwayArchaeological and historical journal Society. Vol XIX, Nos 1and 2.

Tilly, C. 1994A Phenomenology of landscape. Oxford, Berg.

Walsh, P. 2007Landscape Study of Neiphin Mountain in Co Mayo. Unpublished MAthesis. National University Collage Galway.

Aiya Conference

Documents

Transcript of Aiya Conference